As we travel our lifetime in this universe, we pass through gorges while at the same time enjoy the breeze. I will live this life to the fullest while sharing my thoughts in this cyber world.
Docendo disco, scribendo cogito (I learn by teaching, think by writing)

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Judge Ian Chin exposes Mahathircrimesma

SIBU: A High Court judge here yesterday made some startling revelations at the commencement of the proceedings of the election petition filed by the DAP candidate for the Sarikei parliamentary seat, Wong Hus She, to declare the result of the March 8 general election for the seat void.

Justice Datuk H C Ian Chin informed the parties in open court that he had certain disclosures to make at the start of the proceedings, saying he was doing so to forestall any complaints that might be made by the parties later.

He said complaints had been made against him in an earlier case that he had failed to disclose the detention of his father and brother during the time of the Mustapha regime in Sabah in late 1969 and the early 1970.

Chin then proceeded to make his disclosure the contents of which could only be described as explosive, coming hot on the heels of the findings of the Royal Commission in the Lingam video tape.

He started by saying that “it is better to err on caution that I take this step to shortly disclose what the parties and counsel may not be aware but which they may later complain that I should have disclosed”.

[..]

Chin said the other was the judgement handed down on Feb 13 1997 in respect of an election petition (Donald Lawan v Abang Wahed bin Abang & Ors [Sri Aman High Court]) by which he set aside the election of Mong Dagang.

“Shortly after those two judgements, the Judges Conference was held from April 24 1997.

The then prime minister (Mahathir) was scheduled to have a dialogue with the judges on that date. What was termed a dialogue and later reported as one was anything but a dialogue.

“The then prime minister went there to issue a thinly veiled threat to remove judges by referring to the tribunal that was set up before and stating that though it may be difficult to do so, it was still done. He said all that after he had expressed his unhappiness with what he termed ‘the Borneo Case’ and after he had asked whether the judge who decided that case was present or not.”

Chin said no one had any doubt that he was referring to the election case though he (then prime minister) did not mention it specifically which he decided on Feb 13, 1997.

Added the High Court judge: “After he was done with issuing that threat, he then proceeded to express his view that people should pay heavily for libel.

“He managed to get a single response from a Court of Appeal judge who asked whether he would be happy with a sum of RM1 million as damages for libel.

“He approved of it and he later on made known his satisfaction by promoting this judge (since deceased) to the Federal Court over many others who were senior to him when a vacancy arose.

“I was devastated after hearing all that but help came immediately after the “dialogue” was over when Federal Court judges came to my side and asked me to ignore him. Equally comforting were the words of my brother High Court judge who later told me that the then Prime Minister was too much.

“It will be recalled that the then prime minister not long after he assumed office had said, in a much publicised campaign against corruption, that he will put the fear of God in man but this apparently, given his diatribe in that conference, changed to instilling a fear of him if any judgment is to his dislike.”

A month later, Chin said he was packed off to a boot camp from May 26-30 together with selected judges and judicial officers.

He said that the boot camp was without any doubt “an attempt to indoctrinate those attending the boot camp to hold the view that the government interest as being more important than all else when we are considering our judgement”.

“Stating this devilish notion was by no less a person than the President of the Court of Appeal. Everyone was quiet during the question sessions. Also invited to the boot camp was a lecturer from a university who berated the election case and the bright spot in this episode was that a judicial officer, during question time, told the lecturer that she had no question but only a statement to make which was that the lecturer was in contempt of court.

“The then prime minister was scheduled to talk but he did not turn up and instead sent his then deputy who instead of talking invited questions and the one question I remembered being asked was — Are politicians looking for girls when they are often seen loitering at posh hotel lobbies?

“The perversion of justice did not stop there. My brother judge Kamil Awang was one morning looking for me after clocking in; we were both then serving in Kuching, Sarawak. When I met up with him in his chambers he was distraught and he told me that he had last night received a telephone call from the then Chief Justice asking him to dismiss the election petition that he was going to hear in Kota Kinabalu.

“He sought my opinion as to what to do with the telephone call.

“We went into the possibility of making a police report or of writing to the Chief Justice a letter to record what he had said over the telephone but in the end he decided against it since it will be his words against that of the Chief Justice,” he said.

“Now, though no longer the prime minister and so no longer able to carry out his threat to remove judges which should therefore dispel any fear which any judge may have of him, if ever there was such fear, nevertheless the coalition party that he led is still around and the second respondent won on a ticket of that coalition party and it may cross someone’s mind that I may have an axe to grind against the party concerned or any member thereof.

“No amount of words from me would assuage you of your worry; you will have to read my judgments as to whether they are according to the evidence and the law or whether they were influenced by threat.”

26 comments:

if this judge ian chin can keep silence for a crime in jurisdiction since 1997, what makes a coward suddenly bold after 10 years. there must be instructions from federal kl for him to disclose this, and he will be rewarded. they are after our old-friend mahathir.

Ian Chin could not put his speeches in writing without being indicted. He has to wait for a case in court for him to do so. This is his chance to put forward all that he had kept inside himself over the years.

It is not easy for a presiding judge to speak of such issue unless an opportunity arises such as this case.

Forgive me for saying so, but most of you have missed the point that obligates the presiding judge to make this statement. He is required by duty to make this statement in open court because the significance of what had passed those long years ago still resonates.

His statement is to raise the issue of conflict of interest; I believe he did make his opening statement to that effect; that in anticipation of any such accusation, on this issue of conflict of interest, he wants to clear the air so to speak.

I totally do not believe that this judge is doing Pak Lah's bidding or anyone's bidding. There were some comments that he should have raised this issue earlier; this criticism too is not valid because what impropriety that passed at the indoctrination class was neither here nor there; but what passed between the Chief Justice and that Judge who spoke to Justice Tan, THAT HE SHOULD THROW THE CASE AGAINST THE BN CANDIDATE CONSTITUTE "PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE and would be cause to send the Chief Justice to jail for a term of a few years at least. Justice Tan cannot report what he was told because that will be against the hearsay rule.

On all counts I say that Judge Tan is neither a scared rabbit nor a surrogate for Pak Lah to attack Mahatir.

It is the judge duty to express his concerns pertaining to his standings in relation to the case but don't you think he said more than necessary? He is suing this opportunity to express all his intents with the privilege of immunity.

Artchan,

Ok, I got your point.

Jefus,

You are right; it was the moment.

R.V.David,

I think we have to understand the objectives of boot camp and then analyze the contraries.

being bold and macho is not enough, you needed a reason, any reason or excuse will do, at least to convince the public, least people will think you are a tyrant. even mahathir needed a reason however lame it is to put anwar in jail.

aab is slowly letting the rotten stuff from mahathir time to come out. this is to protect himself eventually by saying all problems was inherited by mahathir's time, and to stop his attack on him.

judge imunity or no-imunity it doesn't matter at all, if the pm doesn't like your face, he can remove you regardless for whatever reasons. mahathir did it before to the CJ, and also to anwar sodomy charges. any excuses can be use, it doesn't matter.

though aab sleeps a lot more than mahathir, don't think he is stupid. this judge ian is also not stupid not to realise this.

in malaysia, if aab wants to stop this ian guy, he just have to give him a call, and the guy will stop. if not then threathen him, he didn't speak for 10 years, and he can hold for another 10 years more. for it to make it to the news, someone must have allowed it, even if the person didn't master-mind it in the first place.

This judge sounds very much like flip-flop AAB... berkokok after being awaken from his slumber post GE12... he got the full 4 years to complain before ma... why now? Wonder how much "pocket money" he got from Zaid Ibrahim on this?

The judge have to wait for an appropriate time and valid occasion to make his statement; he can't just talk like us at anytime and any place as he has to comply to the judicial ethics as well as ensure that he will not be criminalized by a system which had empirically done so often in the past.

I am just wondering what is wrong with this fellow Matthias Chang ? Mahatir is already “suda penchen”, so what is this Mattahias fellow so hot under his collar about. Is he trying to posture himself as a man of great principle or is he merely tryimg to buy himself his “15 minutes of fame ?” This man thinks he is a great hero, but to my thinking he is an arsehole licker.

Mahatir is the most evil influence that ever held sway over the unfortunate fate of Malaysia and it is he who has put Malaysia at the bottom rung of the ladder of economic competitiveness as identified in many studies on the issue. Mahatir used the most vicious tool to retain political power. ie race politics and race divisiveness. It is Mahatir who exploited the greed and self centeredness of Chinese politicians in the MCA; as a consequence of his evil influence, Malaysia is today what it is and what it has always been, a country that is divided by race and the wholesale abuse of the national treasure that only went into the pockets of politicians of the ruling government.

That is definitely something very wrong with this arsehole Matthias Chang. I think it is more a case of Matthias Chang trying to exploit his service with Mahatir to attract attention. He has challenged Cumarasamy to a debate; to what end ? Is he trying to prove that he is a more competent debater than is Cumarasamy ? What will that achieve ? It would appear that Cumarasamy is merely ignoring him as one of no consequence. Has he thought about that ?

Coming back to the ridiculous suggestion that is posed by this Matthias Cheng fellow, that this Judge should be prosecuted for sedition etc., let me remind him that the last time that I read the Malaysian Constitution, JUDGES CAN ONLY BE SACKED BY A RESOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT. Having said that maybe this Judge wants a debate of the woeful state of the Malaysian Judiciary in Parliament. I believe his name is Ian Chin, and from what has passed we have to assume that Judge Ian Chin is a very tough minded judge and knows what he wants. If we assume that that is what Judge Ian Chin had in mind, then why does the Barisan national RAISE THIS ISSUE IN PARLIAMENT AND TO CALL FOR ANOTHER ROYAL COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY ?

I am posting a couple of letters that I had written to the Attorney General, Chief Judge of Malaysia, President of the Court of Appeal, President & Secretary of Malaysian Bar and many practicing lawyers copies of these letters. My Charge against Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, judge of the Malaysian Federal Court, that she criminally aided & Abetted respondents Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen & Kwong Sea Yoon to commit perjury, forgery, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, obstructing a criminal investigation, Malfeasance, and among others, conspiracy to obtain money under false pretences; when she adjudicated my wife’s Originating Petition

I have written to you on the above matter a few times but I have still not received any reply, ant even an acknowledgement.

Yang Amat Berhormat, is it not the law that a presiding judge has the duty TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ANY CRIMINAL OFFENCES COMMITTED BY ANY LITIGANT or party to the Court Proceedings ?

I refer YAB to my wife’s above Petition. My wife’s supporting affidavits had annexed as exhibits copies of 3 police reports charging the respondents Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen and Kwong Sea Yoon with PERJURY, FORGERY and fabrication of evidence. The signatures of the forged documents when compared to their true signatures of my wife’s clearly show discrepancy and in spit of these irregularities, JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI refused to give my wife leave to cross examine the said respondents for PERJURY & FORGERY. Her refusal to give leave to my wife to cross examine the said respondents under these circumstances CONSTITUTES AIDING & ABETTING THE RESPONDENTS IN THE COMMISSION OF THESE CRIMINAL OFFENCES. To support my charges against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for aiding & abetting the criminal respondents I ENCLOSE A COPY OF ONE OF THE 3 POLICE REPORTS; a police report made at the police station at Jalan Tun HS Lee, KL.

I have been writing many letters to various VIP for an extended period of at least 2 years AND TO DATE I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY REPLY NOT EVEN AN ACKNOWLEDGE. Is it not the reason for drawing no acknowledgement from any of you VIPs the fact that if you had knowledge of such criminal behaviour, you are required by law to take action ? That being the case you have chosen to remain MUTE ? The facts of my wife’s petition & circumstances of the court process that followed is sufficient EVIDENCE to convict Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for the criminal offences that I charged her with.

Yang Amat Berhormat, WILL YOU NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THIS ONE LETTER ? This letter will be posted on the blogsite of “Cakap tak suropa bekin” (check MALAYSIANS UNPLUGGED, and my own blogg. at http://yap.chongyee.blogspot.com ).

I give you my word that I shall come to KL to confront Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali in court; soon after the Olympics and hopefully by September, 16 I will have to contend with the government of Pakatan Rakyat and hope that I will get a little more JUSTICE BEFORE THE LAW !

I finally want the world to know and for you to know my final bit of fact about the criminal behaviour of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. I withheld this information because my humanity saddened me to have to reveal this fact and expose the Police Investigating officer to possible RETRIBUTION and that will be very unfortunate for the further progress of the career of this officer. However, be that as it may, the truth is the truth and since I want my story to be told, I have a duty to myself to reveal all.

This incident relates to my own first police report, because there were in fact a total of 3 police reports made; my wife had made the 1st police report stating that she had NEVER EVER PASSED ANY COMPANY RESOLUTION WHEN SHE WAS THE PROMOTER DIRECTOR OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY, RELIONUS ADJUSTERS SDN. BHD, and that the resolution allegedly passed by Stephen Lim Cheng Ban as proposer and Wong Kem Chen as seconder together with my wife as the third participating director.attending the meeting was a lie.

Stephen Lim Cheng Ban & Wong Kem Chen FABRICATED this alleged resolution because for all the time of the existence of the company up to this day, THERE is still no legitimate and LAWFUL document TO EVIDENCE the share holding of Wong Kem Chen as a share holder in the company; therefore the purpose of the alleged company resolution alleging that my wife participated in the passing of this said resolution WAS TO SHOW THAT AT THE TIME OF THE PASSING OF THIS FABRICATED DOCUMENT, Wong Kem Chen was a director of the company and this alleged fabricated document was invented to evidence the alleged share participation of Wong kem Chen as share holder of the company.. The full significance of this story will be told at the trial of this petition, because with the conspiracy of all the participants except for my wife, many of the documents have been made to go missing.

Having recited the background circumstances of my revelation, at the time that I made my first police report, I told this police officer investigating (his name is inspector FAWZI of the Balai Police Jalan Tun HS Lee KL, that this case will make him very famous because one of the parties involved was the son of the late Tun Hussein Onn (HARRIS BIN HUSSEIN ONN) and that if this case comes up his name will become famous. He then assured me that he will immediately go to see superior and that he will attend to the case immediately. I later telephoned him and he told me that he had gone to see the Judge about the case, but he was told by the judge NOT TO INVESTIGATE THE CASE. This will make Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali,an accomplice after the fact for aiding & abetting the co-conspirators Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen, Kwong Sea Yoon, AND NOT LEAST THE PARTICIPATION OF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD ALI . Her action constitutes PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE AND ACTION TO HINDER THE PROGRESS OF A POLICE INVESTIGATION.

Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali may well say that the right time for police investigation into PERJURY (the charge that I made in my police report) is after the TRIAL; but that only underscores my charge against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for hindering a police investigation & for aiding & abetting PERJURY; because if the right time for investigating the PERJURY IS AFTER THE TRIAL, then the justification for so alleging by Judge zainon binti Mohd. Ali must be that respondents must be allowed to DEFEND THEMSELVES UNDER CROSS EXAMINATION, free of any doubt that may arise from any police investigation conducted BEFORE THE CROSS EXAMINATION IN COURT; but in our case Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali KNOWING FULL WELL THAT A POLICE REPORT HAD BEEN MADE CHARGING THE 3 CRIMINAL AMIGOES with Perjury, REFUSED PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO CROSS EXAMINATION. This is straight, uncomplicated and incontrovertible evidence against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for aiding & abetting respondents in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, abuse of her judicial powers to hinder a police investigation. That and many more, but why bother with more; just these couple of offences if convicted will put Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali in JAIL for a few years. JUDGE OF THE MALAYSIAN FEDERAL COURT JAILED FOR PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE.

THE BIG QUESTION THAT I WANT TO ASK THE PRIME MINISTER & THE MALAYSIAN JUDICIARY AS A WHOLE, IS IT WORTH THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE MALAYSIAN JUDICIARY TO PROTECT FROM PROSECUTION OF 3 CRIMINALS ?

Point well taken ! There is no democracy if there is no honest & ethical judiciary. Laws are made to be enforced, or else society just cannot function. Malaysia is such a society, judges just do not respect the Law.

I am trying everything that I can think of to get the A-G, the Chief Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal to act in accordance with their oth of office; but so far there has been no response; what sort of legal & judicial service that Malaysia has ?